John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, on February 23, 2009, I was called away on personal business. I regret that I was not present for the following votes: On the passage of H.R. 911. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' On the passage of H.R. 44. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' On the passage of H.R. 601. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, today I have introduced, along with my Judiciary Committee colleagues Rick Boucher of Virginia, Jim Jordan of Ohio, and James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, the State Video Tax Fairness Act of 2009. This bipartisan legislation is a consumer-minded effort to prevent States from enacting taxes that may be designed to advantage one form of video transmission over another. This legislation preserves a level playing field between competitors while protecting State revenue prerogatives. This legislation accomplishes three goals: First, consumers will benefit from lower prices, because States will impose only fair and nondiscriminatory video transmission taxes, on all providers. Second, competition will strengthen in the paid television programming industry, because this legislation will ensure that no provider will be unfairly favored by discriminatory tax policies. Third, States will continue to have the ability to raise revenue, because this legislation does not hinder their ability to do so, as long as they do so in a fair and nondiscriminatory manner. This legislation incorporates changes adopted by the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law at markup during the last Congress. Those changes include providing grandfather protection to those States that, as of January 1, 2008, had already enacted video programming tax structures that would violate the new requirement. The six States whose tax structures would be protected are Florida, Kentucky, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, and Utah. This legislation also includes several technical changes to conform the language to certain State tax laws with respect to the methods by which multichannel video programming distribution services are delivered, and clarifies a tax as discriminatory ``if the net tax rate imposed on one means of providing multichannel video service is higher than the net tax rate imposed on another.'' This legislation ensures that States could not selectively reduce the effective tax rate by imposing the same tax rate on services, but then reimbursing certain costs borne by specific providers, as some States have done. The State Video Tax Fairness Act of 2009 will give households that pay for television programming service the assurance that they can choose to receive very similar services, such as from cable or satellite providers, without having to wonder whether subscribing to a particular service will entail paying more in taxes than if they had chosen a different service. I invite my colleagues to join with me and Representatives Boucher, Jordan, and Sensenbrenner, by cosponsoring the ``State Video Tax Fairness Act of 2009.''

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, today I join my colleagues in both the House and the Senate in introducing the Performance Rights Act of 2009, legislation that takes a first step at ensuring that all radio platforms are treated in a similar manner and that those who perform music are paid for their work. I am joined by Representatives Issa, Berman, Blackburn, Peterson (MN), Hodes, Weiner, Wasserman Schultz, Cohen, Nadler, Sherman, Wexler, Johnson (GA), Schiff, Shadegg, Jackson- Lee, Linda Sanchez, Harman and Waxman. This narrowly tailored bill amends a glaring inequity in America's copyright law--the provision in Section 114 that exempts over-the-air broadcasters from paying those who perform the music that we listen to on AM and FM radio. The purpose of the bill is to take a necessary step towards platform parity so that any service that plays music pays those who create and own the recordings--just as satellite, cable and internet radio stations currently do. Fairness mandates that all those in the creative chain--from the artist, musicians and others who bring the recording to life--get compensated for the way they enrich our lives. The U.S. is the only developed country in the world that does not require privately owned over-the-air radio stations to compensate the performers who create the music that broadcasters use to attract the audiences that generate their ad revenues. Because of music, radio is able to profit, and so refusing to compensate those who create the music is unfair and ultimately harmful to everyone--including the broadcasters. Furthermore, the law requires all other platforms in the U.S. (including satellite and Internet radio) to compensate the copyright owner, so broadcast radio should not receive a free pass. This legislation's narrow scope addresses some of the concerns that have been raised about the bill. First, it repeals the current broadcaster exemption--but it does NOT apply to bars, restaurants and other venues, and it does not expand copyright protection in any other way. Second, it provides an accommodation of protection for small and non-commercial broadcasters by setting a low flat annual fee with no negotiation, litigation or arbitration expenses. As a result, nearly 77 percent of existing broadcasting stations in this country--including college stations and public broadcasters--will pay only a nominal flat fee, rather than having to pay a percentage of their revenues as royalties. Third, the bill does NOT harm or adversely affect the revenues rightfully paid to songwriters and other existing copyright owners. It simply extends copyright protection to artists, musicians and the sound recording labels. This bill is a starting point, not a final product, and I plan to continue to work with interested parties to ensure that the bill is fair to everyone. I promise to continue working on issues affecting the songwriters, public radio, webcasters, and others who will be critical to the process of moving this bill forward. And as always, I hope the broadcasters will decide to engage on this issue so that we can end up with a mutually agreeable final product. I hope that with introduction of a companion bill in the Senate, Congress will act quickly to level the playing field between technologies and ensure rightful compensation to performers.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. This stimulus package injects targeted, temporary, and responsible investment in our economy and, with a little luck and hard work, will pull our Nation back from the brink of fiscal collapse. The jobs, training, and investment that will be created with this stimulus will provide true relief to the weary American worker. As much as the other side would like to convince us, building green schools creates jobs; fixing crumbling aqueducts and sewer systems creates jobs; installing energy efficient insulation in public buildings creates jobs; even resodding the National Mall creates jobs. Even better, our Nation will reap the benefits of this investment for years to come; creating many additional jobs in the private sector as we repave roadways and transform dilapidated communities into thriving commerce-rich economic zones. Thank goodness this Congress and this President have thrown aside the voodoo economic policies of the past 8 years. By voting for this Act, we right American jobs policy by returning to a common-sense principle: promoting work that produces American products and strengthens American communities. Instead of simply cutting taxes for big corporations and promoting policies that shift capital from one bank account to another, this Act will leave behind real tangible benefits for the next generation--a true legacy of achievement. As we debate this issue here today, Michigan's unemployment rate has risen above 10 percent, local manufacturers are slashing tens of thousands of jobs, and many are signing up for Medicaid and COBRA insurance at unprecedented levels. The jobs created by this stimulus are long-term jobs that provide solid wages to working-class Americans; it is only these types of jobs that will pull Michigan out of its economic malaise. This stimulus package is a historic solution to a historic problem; it will likely be the biggest piece of legislation ever passed by this body. Faced with such dire economic problems, we have to aim big. Two notable economists, Paul Krugman and Jeffery Sachs have both voiced their support for a large scale stimulus to avoid a ``L shaped'' recovery that would mirror Japan's stagnant growth and labor market of the 1990s. In these gloomy economic times, hesitation and caution are not a viable option. Now is the time to act decisively. Mr. Chair, H.R. 1 promotes sorely needed investment in transportation. For example, it provides $30 billion for federal aid to highway and bridge construction, $3 billion to airport improvement projects, and $1.1 billion for Amtrak and intercity passenger rail grants. These projects will offer additional much needed personal and commercial movement options for my constituents. Additionally, as an ardent supporter of universal health care, I am delighted that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will fund many important programs that will reduce health costs. H.R. 1 will provide $1 billion to renovate community clinics and $600 million to address doctor shortages in urban areas by assisting medical school students with their expenses if they agree to practice in underserved communities as a part of the National Health Service Corps. To further lower health care costs, H.R. 1 will create a Prevention and Wellness Fund, where $3 billion will be allocated to fight preventable chronic diseases. This will include grants to state and local public health departments, immunization programs, and disease prevention initiatives. Moreover, the bill will invest $20 billion to computerize medical records to cut costs, extend COBRA healthcare for the unemployed with a $30.3 billion investment, and will give $8.6 billion to expand Medicaid coverage for the recently unemployed. H.R. 1 will also help provide quality education to all Americans. As a direct response to the recent cut backs in educational funding and staggering increases in college tuition, the bill will provide $79 billion to states and $41 billion to local school districts through Title I, IDEA, the School Modernization and Repair Program, and the education technology program. Furthermore, $15 billion will be given to states as bonus grants if they can meet key performance measures. Lastly, H.R. 1 increases individual Pell Grant allocations by $500. H.R. 1 will also help hard working Americans stay in their homes. The bill will create a $5 billion Public Housing Capital Fund that will repair and modernize public housing. $1.5 billion will be given to the rehabilitate low-income housing using green technologies in the HOME Investment Partnerships. In addition, $4.2 billion will help communities purchase and rehabilitate foreclosed, vacant properties in order to create more affordable housing and reduce neighborhood blight. I could go on and on about the many worthy initiatives this bill furthers. In particular, I am heartened that it makes wise investments in preserving our public places, ending hunger, and promoting the deployment of broadband Internet access. Needless to say, it is a comprehensive bill and a vote for it is a vote to revitalize every sector of our economy. For too long many have believed that the free market can fix America's problem. We have been told that the only thing created by public investment is more bureaucracy and an unwieldy national debt. Well, I am here to tell you that prudent targeted government investment in the private and public sectors creates something else: jobs. The minority had their chance to promote their version of the economy when they controlled the Congress and the White House. And what have they left us: unchecked spending that resulted in millions of jobs lost, a lower standard of living, and the greatest levels of inequality we have seen since the period of unchecked deregulation that immediately preceded the Great Depression. The investments championed by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt led us out of a period of despair and uncertainty and ushered in the greatest period of sustained growth our Nation has ever experienced. We did it once; we can do it again. H.R. 1 is the blueprint for such a recovery and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, today, Iowa State University will host its celebration of the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The Advancing One Community Award given in his name will recognize the laureates' commitment to an inclusive multicultural community and efforts to reduce injustice and inequity. Receiving this award will be Mary de Baca, who has never shied from that struggle. Mary de Baca coordinates diversity programs for the world-renowned College of Agriculture at Iowa State University. She is the program and financial advisor to the George Washington Carver Internship Program. She is the faculty advisor to the Iowa State University chapter of Minorities in Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Related Sciences (MANRRS). She has built that club into a national powerhouse: it has been National MANRRS Chapter of the Year three of the last four years. She has established linkages between Iowa State and historically Black land grant colleges, Hispanic serving institutions, and tribal colleges so that they can share faculty, laboratory equipment, and resources, and bring talented minority students into the academic pipeline. As a result, Iowa State is a leader in training minority graduate students and professors, although Iowa is not often thought of as the most diverse state in the Union. Mary de Baca's commitment to diversity is in the long tradition of the University. This is, after all, the school which admitted George Washington Carver when no other school would allow him to study at all, much less achieve a PhD. This is the school whose football stadium is named after the man who integrated its sports teams in 1923, Jack Trice. Trice followed in Dr. Carver's footsteps. He came to Iowa to study agriculture so he could go South and help the community. But he never got the chance; he was tragically killed on the football field by the opposing team. Iowa State also took a chance on one of the few Latinos to receive a Doctorate in the 1950s, her late husband, Robert C. de Baca, who Mary de Baca met when he was a young professor of animal science. She joined him in postings abroad, where she did some of the first home economics studies on the lives of rural Latin American women. With him, she built up a renowned herd of Black Angus cattle on the farm where she still lives. In her own family life, Mary de Baca has done her part to increase the number of minority professionals: she is the proud mother of three children, doctor Monica, businesswoman Suzanna, and civil rights lawyer Luis, who is a valued member of our Judiciary Committee team. Between college and graduate school, Mary de Baca returned home to Southern Indiana teach high school home economics. As a young teacher, she stubbornly overrode the protests of white parents to ensure that African-Americans could participate in cheerleading, the homecoming court, and other extra-curricular activities. Vernon Jordan described the State at the time in this way: ``Although Indiana is above the Mason-Dixon line, it has a tough history regarding race. For a time it had the largest and most active chapters of the Ku Klux Klan in the country. It was a mess in the 1920s and 1930s. When I was there in the 1950s, it wasn't exactly a racial utopia.'' But one can imagine the young Mary de Baca mentoring those students and helping them reach their potential without fanfare or drama, just as she does today. As an educator for over 50 years, Mary de Baca has helped to move us toward the more inclusive and equal world for which Dr. King fought. I congratulate her on receiving this honor in his name from her students, her colleagues, and her University.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of myself, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. Coble, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Berman, and Mr. Wolf to honor Jon W. Dudas, a distinguished public servant who is leaving the helm of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (``USPTO'') on January 20, 2009. Jon has served as Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO since July 2004. He previously served as acting Under Secretary and Director, and Deputy Under Secretary and Deputy Director from 2002 to 2004. As head of the world's leading intellectual property (``IP'') office, Jon developed and articulated administration positions on patent, copyright, and trademark issues, both domestic and foreign and effectively steered the operations of the USPTO, an organization of approximately 9,000 employees dedicated to providing and maintaining the intellectual property protections that promote innovation and technological advancement. Under Jon's leadership, the USPTO's university-style examiner training academy, peer review pilot, electronic filing and processing, and accelerated examination programs were developed and implemented. Additionally, the USPTO's hoteling programs for its patent and trademark examiners serve as a gold standard for other Federal agencies and the USPTO continued to be recognized as the leader in Federal Government telework initiatives. In the critical area of appropriations for the USPTO's vital operations, Jon worked tirelessly with the Congress and the administration to ensure USPTO's full access to all collected fees over the last 4 years, breaking a streak of fee diversion. His assistance and counsel were also greatly valued and appreciated during the House's development of patent reform and other pieces of important IP legislation. Prior to joining the Bush administration, Jon served 6 years as Counsel to the U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property, and Staff Director and Deputy General Counsel for the House Judiciary Committee. He guided enactment of major patent, trademark, and copyright legislation, including the 1999 American Inventors Protection Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. He was also instrumental in the passage of the 1996 Trademark Anti- Counterfeiting Consumer Protection Act, a law making it more difficult for seized counterfeit merchandise to re-enter the consumer marketplace. I know that our colleagues and the intellectual property community join Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. Coble, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Berman, Mr. Wolf and me in commending Jon for the USPTO's substantive achievements during his tenure. We are honored to have this opportunity to publicly commend a truly dedicated public servant. We wish Jon all the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 73) observing the birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr., and encouraging the people of the United States to observe the birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr., and the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and for other purposes.

Mr. CONYERS. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Members of the House, last Thursday, January 15, marked the 80th birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who was born in 1929. On Monday, January 19, the Dr. King Federal holiday was observed. I commend my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. John Lewis, for introducing again this bipartisan House Resolution that calls upon all Americans on this occasion ``to advance the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'' I also acknowledge the many colleagues of the Judiciary Committee on both sides of the aisle that have joined us in supporting this resolution; in particular, the ranking member from Texas, our friend, Mr. Smith. For over 40 years now, we have commemorated the life and work of the Nation's greatest civil rights leader, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Since 1986, we have recognized Dr. King with a Federal holiday in his honor, a holiday that I and others here have worked so hard to achieve. Last year, we paid tribute to Dr. King upon the 40th anniversary of his assassination. Today, we once again celebrate Dr. King on the event of his birthday. On these anniversaries, the Congress has called upon the Nation's citizens to practice justice, equality, and peace in all aspects of his life, the very principles that Dr. King stood for. Today, we make the same request of not just our colleagues, but of our citizens, recognizing that today is very different. We advance Dr. King's legacy by realizing that some of Dr. King's dream has been achieved. Just yesterday, our Nation witnessed the first African American in history to take the oath of office for President of the United States. Our 44th President, President Obama, is a testament to Dr. King's pursuit and struggle for equality. And in his short life, Dr. King laid the foundation for a society that would guarantee that all men are created equal. It is on the shoulders of Dr. King and Rosa Parks and Andrew Young and Harry Belafonte, all close colleagues of Dr. King, who were in the forefront of the civil rights movement. And that is why we stand here today, witnesses to history, with our first African American President. President Obama spoke movingly yesterday when he asked that we mark his inauguration in remembrance of who we are and how far we have traveled; why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across the magnificent Mall; and why a man whose father, less than 60 years ago, might not have been served at a local restaurant, can now stand before you to take the most sacred oath that was given to him yesterday. In celebrating the great legacy of Dr. King's work, we must recognize that his legacy does not end here. Continuing his mission of justice means bringing an end to racial and economic injustices, like those we have seen in so many aspects of the current financial and fiscal crisis that we are confronted with. Advancing his mission of equality means eliminating the disparities that exist in so many aspects of our society; health care, housing, education, employment. And so pursuing his mission of peace means bringing an end to the wars that still persist and allowing our Nation to be an example of a peaceful democracy. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the gentleman from Georgia, who I met before he became a Member of this distinguished body. As a matter of fact, before I became a Member of this distinguished body. I am pleased now to recognize the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) for such time as he may consume.

Mr. CONYERS. How much time is left?

Mr. CONYERS. I yield 4 of those 8\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from Texas, Sheila Jackson-Lee. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The point that I would like to make in closing on our side is that one of the most important things that President Obama made to me was something I had never heard a President say before, and that was that he wanted all of the people that voted and that may or may not have supported him to continue to advise him. Normally, Presidents get elected and say, ``Well, I am grateful to my supporters,'' and then remove to inside the Beltway with the Cabinet and the Capitol and the people in the three branches of government, and that's it. He asked for continuing advice. Some said, he did not have to make that statement because he was going to get that anyway, but others have said, ``This is wonderful and this is great.'' And I think it ties in with the people's moment that undergirded the King civil rights legacy; that is, that everybody has a continuing responsibility to perfect this democratic system of constitutional government that we have. It is so important that we all feel we have a role to play over and above voting, and it is that King-like theory that the President now publicly extols that is so very important. And, I think, we embark here in the second day of this new administration on a new path that encourages citizen participation; I think it brings us all here in government closer together, and I think that it augers well for the challenges that we all face here in the 111th Congress and a new President currently in his second day in office. And so in this moment of remembering Dr. King and his legacy, celebrate his life and contributions, I am very pleased that this resolution is brought at this highly opportune moment. I thank the author of this legislation.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 26, final passage of H.R. 384, I was unable to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' Stated against:

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, on January 9, 2009, I inadvertently cast a ``yea'' vote for H. Res. 34. I intended to vote ``present.''

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, today I have received a report prepared by the majority staff of the House Judiciary Committee, Committee, detailing numerous abuses by the Bush administration over the past 8 years, and recommending a number of steps to restore an appropriate Constitutional balance of power between the executive and legislative branches. The report, based largely on oversight activities of the Judiciary Committee, and other committees, over the course of the 110th Congress, is titled ``Reining in the Imperial Presidency: Lessons and Recommendations Relating to the Presidency of George W. Bush.'' Issues examined include: The politicization of the Department of Justice; assaults on individual liberty, including extreme interrogation, extraordinary rendition, and warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens; the misuse of executive branch regulatory authority and Presidential signing statements; misleading manipulation of pre-Iraq War intelligence; improper retaliation against Administration critics; and excessive secrecy, including non-compliance with congressional oversight. The report examines how the Bush Administration's legal approach to presidential power has eroded the Constitutional system of checks and balances designed by the Framers to preserve our liberty. It also recommends specific steps that this Congress and the incoming Obama administration should take to restore those checks and balances. I am having the report posted to the Judiciary Committee Web site, in order to make it available to other members of the committee, to the full House, and to the American public. I believe this report will be of tremendous benefit helping inform the changes we must make going forward--to repair the damage to our democracy, and to prevent similar abuses from occurring in the future.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 11, ``The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.'' The time has come for the Congress to reverse the wrongheaded and discriminatory Supreme Court case of Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire Co. If left intact, this case will not only continue to undermine the validity of our Nation's gender discrimination laws, but also laws that prevent employer discrimination based on race, religion, national origin, disability, or age. Madam Speaker, I was shocked when I heard the story of Lilly Ledbetter, the Goodyear Tire plant employee who suffered from pay discrimination for nearly two decades. After learning that she had been victimized by her employer, she brought an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint against Goodyear. Unfortunately, in 2007, a majority of our anti-worker, pro-corporate Supreme Court denied her claim, ruling that employees must file a wage-discrimination complaint within 180 days of the very first discriminatory payroll decision. This means that in order to have her day in court, Ms. Ledbetter would have needed to file suit in 1979, even though there was no way she could have known that discrimination was occurring at that point. And even though each successive payroll left her with fewer dollars than her equally qualified colleagues, the Justices of the Supreme Court argued that Ms. Ledbetter had missed her chance at justice. Ms. Ledbetter, a clear victim of discrimination, was left without recourse in a country founded on a respect for the rule of law. For this, we should be ashamed. Adding insult to injury, federal and state courts packed with conservative jurists have taken the precedent created by the Roberts Court's Ledbetter decision and expanded upon its logic--for the sole purpose of undermining a wide range of antidiscrimination laws. Because statues which prevent discrimination are extremely similar in form to one another, it has been extremely easy for these jurists to employ the logic found in a gender discrimination case like Goodyear to disenfranchise claimants seeking redress under provisions of the Civil Rights Act, The Americans with Disabilities Act, the Immigration Reform and Control Act, The Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and many other laws aimed at ending anti-discrimination. If enacted, this bill will clarify that each paycheck resulting from a discriminatory pay decision is a new violation of employment nondiscrimination law. As long as a worker files a charge within 180 days of a discriminatory paycheck, the charge would be considered timely. Madam Speaker, I believe that our courts are our last line of defense when it comes to protecting the fundamental rights enshrined in our Constitution and in our civil rights laws. With our marketplace and court systems unwilling to correct obvious injustices, we need a legislative solution that will ensure that the universal values of fairness, respect, and decency continue to be a part of the American workplace. For the sake of ``equal pay for equal work'' and the continued utility of all of our federal discrimination laws, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 12, ``The Paycheck Fairness Act.'' I am hopeful that the momentum created with the passage of the Act this past July will propel this important legislation through the Senate and on to our new President's desk as one of the first laws enacted by the 111th Congress. In doing so, our Nation takes the final steps in its long journey towards ensuring that men and women receive equal pay for equal work. The Congress first committed itself to remedying the scourge of pay discrimination in 1963, when it passed the Equal Pay Act. At that time, full-time working women were paid on average 59 cents on the dollar earned by their male counterparts. In the ensuing 43 years, the wage gap between men and women has narrowed. In 2009, women earn about 77 percent of what men earn. While this is a dramatic improvement, the 23 cent gap that exists still exemplifies that gender discrimination is a real and contemporary problem in our labor market. H.R. 12 would attack this problem in a comprehensive manner. It builds on many of the innovative policies found in the original EPA and adds provisions specifically crafted to address the realities of 21st century offices. H.R. 12 will strengthen the EPA by making it unlawful for an employer to pay unequal wages to men and women who have substantially similar jobs that are performed under similar working conditions within the same physical location of business. Under the original EPA, employers can justify unequal pay if it is based on: seniority; merit; quality or quantity of production; or ``any factor other than sex.'' This legislation clarifies the `any factor other than sex' defense, so that an employer trying to justify paying a man more than a woman for the same job must show that the disparity is not sex-based, is job-related, and necessary for the business. The bill will also prohibit employers from retaliating against employees who discuss or disclose salary information with their coworkers. However, employees such as human resources personnel who have access to payroll information as part of their job would not be protected if they disclose the salaries of other workers. The bill also adds teeth and accountability by strengthening the remedies available to include punitive and compensatory damages. Under the EPA currently, plaintiffs can only recover back pay and in some cases double back pay. The damages would not be capped. Mr. Speaker, the time has come for this body to enshrine ``equal pay for equal work'' as the law of the land. I encourage my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, today I rise to introduce the Caging Prohibition Act of 2009, a much needed reform to our election system. As the 111th Congress focuses on election fixes and greater voter protections, this legislation is a critical contribution to such efforts. Prohibitions on voter caging will ensure that our democracy lives up to the belief that every eligible citizen is entitled to the right to vote. Voter caging, though just recently given media attention, is a disenfranchisement tactic that has been around for over 50 years. This undemocratic tactic often involves sending mail to voters at the addresses at which they are registered to vote. Should such mail be returned as undeliverable or without a return receipt, voters' names are placed on a ``caging list,'' that list then being used to challenge voters'' eligibility. Those suggesting that voter caging is necessary to weed out ineligible voters must recognize this practice is unreliable and dangerous for such purposes. Mail may be returned as undeliverable for any number of reasons unrelated to an individual's eligibility to vote. For example, mail is returned due to typos, transposed numbers, new street names, and improper deliveries. Voters in my home State of Michigan have been subjected to voter caging controversies in the last two Presidential elections. In the 2008 election, a voter caging strategy meant to politically capitalize on the subprime mortgage crisis was identified. Those voters whose homes had been subjected to foreclosure were targets for caging on the basis that they no longer resided at the addresses at which they registered to vote. During the 2004 election, challengers monitored every single one of Detroit's 254 polling stations. This strategy was consistent with a Michigan lawmaker's effort to ``suppress the Detroit vote.'' It was widely accepted that this statement was synonymous with ``suppress the Black vote,'' as Detroit is 83 percent African American. Our most vulnerable voters racial minorities, language minorities, low-income people, the homeless, and college students--always seem to be targeted for caging and other voter suppression campaigns. However, all voters are susceptible to voter intimidation and suppression. For example, during the 2004 election, Ohio and Florida caging lists included the names of soldiers whose mail had been returned as undeliverable because they were stationed overseas. It is because no one is immune to caging and other disenfranchisement tactics, that I have introducing the Caging Prohibition Act. This bill is really quite simple, as it one, requires election officials to corroborate their caging documents with independent evidence before a voter can be deemed ineligible. And two, limits all other challenges that do not come from election officials to those based on personal, first-hand knowledge. By eliminating caging tactics, we restore what has been missing from our elections--fairness, honesty, and integrity. I ask that my colleagues in the Congress join me in supporting the Caging Prohibition Act of 2009. Please stand with me in protecting the very core of our democracy.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, today I rise to introduce the Voting Opportunity and Technology Enhancement Rights or VOTER Act of 2009. I introduce this legislation, more than 200 years after the founding of our democracy, because we have yet to realize a government that is truly representative of the principle, ``of the people, by the people.'' Not until every eligible voter has the opportunity to cast a ballot and have that ballot counted, will we have a proper democracy. Though the 2008 Election did not present the widespread irregularities and improprieties that were witnessed during the 2000 and 2004 Elections, it was still an election in which voter disenfranchisement was attempted and accomplished. Voters' names are still missing from voter rolls. Voter harassment and intimidation continues. In fact, over the years, the methods that are used to disenfranchise voters have just become more contemporary and sophisticated as evidenced during the 2008 Election. For example, in my home State of Michigan, in the midst of the current subprime mortgage crisis, a strategy to challenge a voter's eligibility based on home foreclosure status was devised. In Virginia, a flyer telling Democrats to vote on Wednesday November 5, 2008, circulated. Anything short of a perfect election system is unacceptable. I have introduced VOTER so that we may work towards a more perfect system, one that reflects legitimacy, integrity, and inclusivity. VOTER will protect and expand voting rights in Federal elections, as well as ensure the proper administration of Federal elections. VOTER will: (1) provide for a uniform Federal write-in absentee ballot; (2) require States to provide for a verified audit trail; (3) count provisional ballots cast in the proper State; (4) properly allocate voting machines and poll workers; (5) provide for election day voter registration; (6) protect against improper purging of registration lists; (7) mandate early voting; (8) require verification and audit ability for punch cards; (9) simplify voter registration requirements; (10) allow voter identification by written affidavit; (11) provide for a study of nonpartisan election boards; (12) strengthen the EAC with funding and resources; (13) require the EAC to (a) enhance training for election officials; (b) require the use of publicly available open source software; (c) provide uniform standards for vote recounts; and (d) prohibit voting machine companies from engaging in political activities; (14) prohibit deceptive practices and intimidation; (15) prohibit caging and other questionable challenges; (16) restore voting rights to former felons; and (17) treat Election Day as a federal holiday. Some of these initiatives have already been implemented by States, the success of which was observed during the 2008 Election. There are 32 States that currently provide early voting, including Florida, a State that witnessed over one million voters turn out to the polls the weekend before the election. There are also 28 States that currently provide no-excuse absentee voting. Such practices were critical to managing an unprecedented voter turnout. More than 130 million people turned out to vote in the 2008 Election, the highest turnout in any presidential election. With this many longtime and new voters engaged in the 2008 election process, I suspect that voter participation will only increase in 2012. As such, we must pledge to fight for election reform in this Congress. The right to vote and to have that vote counted is one of our democracy's most fundamental principles. It is with VOTER that I intend to protect this fundamental principle, and I ask that my colleagues in this Congress join me in this fight for fair and just elections.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, today I rise to introduce the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2009. During our elections, including the 2008 election, we have witnessed numerous attempts, some of them successful, to disenfranchise our eligible voters. Deceptive practices and voter intimidation, age-old voter disenfranchisement tactics, continue to keep voters away from the polls today. The Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act is a critical effort in ensuring fairness and integrity in our elections. It is a direct response to the fraudulent tactics used to undermine our elections. Every eligible voter should be able to vote free of intimidation, harassment, and harm. Numerous accounts indicate that deceptive practices have been employed throughout the country in our elections. Voters have been told to vote on the wrong day. They have been told they could not vote with outstanding parking tickets. Ultimately, they were misled, deceived, and disenfranchised. During the 2008 election, a phony flyer circulated in Virginia telling Democratic voters that they were to vote on Wednesday instead of Tuesday. During the 2006 midterm, Latino voters in Orange County, California, were threatened with incarceration if they voted and African American voters in Prince George's County, Maryland were given fliers with false endorsements. As evidenced in California and Maryland, our most vulnerable voters--immigrants and minorities--are often those voters that are targeted for deceptive practices. No matter who is targeted for these tactics, however, such actions are despicable and those responsible for them must be held accountable. This country's long history of voter suppression must end now. We must protect the right to vote for all of our citizens and that is what this legislation will enable us to do. Under this legislation, those that engage in deceptive practices and voter intimidation will be held accountable. Deceptive electioneering practices are clearly defined and prohibited so there is no confusion as to the rights and protections afforded voters. Additionally, the Federal Government will be held responsible for protecting and advancing the right to vote. The Attorney General and the Department of Justice are required to combat and counteract deceptive practices. These measures will ensure that voters are not left to fend for themselves when their right to vote is threatened. If we allow deceptive practices and other such behavior to continue, we jeopardize the very core of our democracy, the right to vote. I ask that my colleagues in the Congress stand with me in support of this legislation, so that we may begin eliminating barriers to the polls.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, today I rise to introduce H.R. 40, the Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act. This 111th Congress marks the 20th anniversary of this bill's introduction. Since 1989, I have believed it to be in the best interest of our Nation to formally address one of our greatest historical injustices. As evidenced by recent events, the sin of slavery is one that continues to weigh heavily upon us. Following the lead of other churches, the Episcopal Church formally apologized for its role in slavery on October 4, 2008. Florida became the sixth state to apologize for slavery on March 26, 2008, following Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, Alabama and New Jersey. During the internationally renowned Sundance Film Festival, Traces of the Trade, a documentary in which descendants of the largest U.S. slave trading family confront this painful history, screened in January of 2008. Just last Congress, the House passed a slavery apology bill on July 29, 2008, in which the House issued a formal apology for slavery. In recognition of the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade on January 1, 1808, the House and Senate passed legislation creating a commemoration commission, which was signed into law on February 5, 2008, and is currently awaiting funding. Such Federal efforts are significant steps towards proper acknowledgment and understanding of slavery and its implications, but our responsibilities on this matter are even greater. Establishing a commission to study the institution of slavery in the United States, as well as its consequences that reach into modern day society, is our responsibility. This concept of a commission to address historical wrongs is not unprecedented. In fact, in recent Congresses, commission bills have been put forward. In 1983, a Presidential Commission determined that the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II was racist and inhumane, and as a result, the 1988 Civil Liberties Act provided redress for those injured by the internment. However, the interment of Japanese Latin Americans in the United States during World War II was not examined by the Commission, resulting in legislation calling for a commission to examine this oversight. Legislation establishing a commission to review the injustices suffered by European Americans, European Latin Americans, and Jewish refugees during World War II has also been proposed. H.R. 40 is no different than these other commission bills. H.R. 40 establishes a commission to examine the institution of slavery and its legacy, like racial disparities in education, housing, and healthcare. Following this examination, the commission would make recommend appropriate remedies to Congress, and as I have indicated before, remedies does not equate to monetary compensation. In the 110th Congress, I convened the first Congressional hearing on H.R. 40. With witnesses that included Professor Charles Ogletree, Episcopal Bishop M. Thomas Shaw, and Detroit City Councilwoman JoAnn Watson, we began a formal dialogue on the legacy of the transatlantic slave trade. This Congress, I look forward to continuing this conversation so that our Nation can better understand this part of our history. Attempts to eradicate today's racial discrimination and disparities will be successful when we understand the past's racial injustices and inequities. A commission can take us into this dark past and bring us into a brighter future. As in years past, I welcome open and constructive discourse on H.R. 40 and this commission in the 111th Congress.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, for reasons enumerated elsewhere, I strongly support this bill. It is essential that Congress take this prudent step to provide a short-term bridge loan to help preserve a viable domestic auto industry, and its far-reaching contributions to the overall long-term health of our economy, while appropriately safeguarding the interests of American taxpayers. The bill we are considering today contains a provision creating a limited antitrust exemption for certain consultations in which a U.S. automaker may be asked to engage with its employees, dealers, suppliers, and other creditors for the purpose of reaching agreement on a restructuring plan for the automaker under the bill. As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I would like to emphasize a few points regarding that provision. The antitrust laws are the fundamental legal protector of our free market system--the Supreme Court has aptly referred to them as the Magna Carta of the free enterprise system. Exemptions from the antitrust laws can be very harmful and destructive of the basic economic freedom we cherish as Americans. For that reason, any proposed antitrust exemption should be very carefully considered as to its need. And even if a need can be clearly demonstrated, the exemption should be carefully focused and of limited duration. In keeping with those considerations, this exemption is temporary and very focused. It is designed to give greater assurance to the various ``interested parties''--the employees, retirees, dealers, suppliers, shareholders, and creditors of a U.S. automaker covered by this bill, listed in section 6(a)(1)(B)--who will be consulting and negotiating with the automaker in an effort to reach agreement on a long-term restructuring plan for the automaker pursuant to the bill. Some of these interested parties are reportedly uncertain as to how their participation in these consultations might raise issues under the antitrust laws. With the urgent need to move quickly on this legislation, it has not been possible to sit down with them and understand the precise nature of their concerns. Based on similar concerns that are raised from time to time in various quarters, the concerns may well be misplaced, reflecting a lack of understanding about the antitrust laws, which prohibit only conduct that harms competition, permitting the wide range of conduct that does not harm competition. While these concerns may be misplaced, however, they appear to be genuine and held in good faith, and could therefore have the effect of discouraging the kinds of participation that is needed from all interested parties in order to enable the restructuring plans to succeed. To help avert this risk, this antitrust exemption has been carefully crafted to provide sufficient reassurance and guidance to interested parties, while avoiding the risk of shielding truly anticompetitive conduct from effective antitrust enforcement. First, the limited exemption covers only the discussions, consultations, and meetings among an eligible auto manufacturer and its own interested parties. It does not cover joint activity among two or more automakers, which could create more risk of harm to competition. It also does not cover action taking place outside those discussions, consultations, and meetings. Second, the limited exemption fully preserves the authority of the Federal antitrust agencies to bring enforcement action for injunctive relief to stop anticompetitive conduct should it occur. Merger enforcement authority is also preserved. Similarly, the so-called ``per se'' offenses, such as price fixing, market allocation, and boycott, remain fully subject to antitrust enforcement. These are not kinds of conduct that someone innocently stumbles into. They are intentional schemes to subvert competition, and can be extremely harmful to the free market system and the economy. Third, in the event that the discussions, consultations, and meetings continue for an extended period, the exemption sunsets after 3 years. In all likelihood, the exemption will quickly prove unnecessary. If not, and if the negotiations are still ongoing as the end of the 3-year period approaches, Congress can always consider extending the sunset if the exemption is truly warranted. The sunset is consistent with the recommendation of the Antitrust Modernization Commission that any antitrust exemption should be temporary. Finally, in order to encourage whatever further guidance may be appropriate, the provision requires that, to the extent practicable, the Federal antitrust enforcement agencies be given reasonable advance notice of any discussion, consultation, or meeting covered by the provision, and the opportunity to participate. As carefully crafted, this provision should provide whatever guidance and reassurance the interested parties may need that their good-faith efforts to cooperate in achieving the bill's important objectives for this important bedrock American industry will not inadvertently create antitrust problems, while at the same time taking appropriate care not to inadvertently immunize truly anticompetitive conduct that could severely harm the long-term health of this industry, the many economic sectors it touches, and the American economy itself.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 7321. With this vote today, the Congress is acting decisively to protect American auto workers and dealers in every Congressional district in the country and sets Detroit on the path to near-term and long-term economic viability. We cannot forget that the auto industry is the backbone of our domestic manufacturing sector--the very sector which drives our economy. Additionally, should one or more of the Big Three automakers fail, it would mean the loss of more than 100,000 jobs directly associated with the industry in my home state of Michigan and more than 3 million jobs around the country indirectly associated with the industry, such as auto dealers and auto part suppliers. At the same time, I and my fellow Members in the Congress are wary of bailing out or rewarding companies that have so often pursued their own interests at the expense of the public good. Whether it was fighting to undermine more demanding fuel efficiency standards or dragging their feel when it came to developing electric car and hybrid technology, the Big 3 are in a large way responsible for the predicament they find themselves in today. Now, the executives of Big 3 have come to Capitol Hill, not as titans of industry, but as caretakers of uncompetitive behemoths on the verge of collapse. They are in no position to make demands of the American people and the aid offered by the Congress today reflects that reality. I believe that the aid package offered to the Big 3 here today extracts real, tangible, expansive reforms from the industry. With this bill we are sending a clear message to Detroit: If you are to survive, you must dramatically alter your business models, slim your corporate structure, spin off unprofitable lines, invest in the technologies of the future, and, above all else, cease producing the gas-guzzling steel chariots of the past. There is no alternative to these reforms. This bridge loan will only work if it truly serves as a bridge to the future and not as a cushion slowing inevitable decline. Over the last month, there has been much discussion about the need for a strong central figure to oversee the dramatic changes being undertaken by the auto industry. I called for the creation of such a position and I am heartened to see that an auto czar-type position is established with this legislation. If Detroit does its part, the Congress can and will do much to make the American auto industry the world and industry leader it once was. The $25 billion authorized in the 2007 Energy Bill and appropriated by the Congress to retrofit the Big 3's aging factories was a step in the right direction. It was my hope that this money would be left untouched during the current debate, so that it could continue to further the original purposes the Congress intended. I remain hopeful that the $15 billion appropriated for the auto companies in this Act will be refunded when we return in January with a larger Democratic majority and a change-minded new President. Let me be clear--this bill is far from perfect. I would have preferred that a provision that mandates that bridge loan recipients withdraw from their suit against California's higher tailpipe emission standards remain in the bill. Stripping this provision will accomplish little. As my colleagues in the upper body, Senators Dianne Feinstein of California and Bill Nelson of Florida, have noted, GM and Ford have laid out business plans indicating that they intend to outperform the California fuel economy standards within a few years anyway. The fact that blocking these suits would have absolutely no effect on the Big 3's bottom lines makes these taxpayer subsidized lawsuits even more outrageous. I also think we must acknowledge the failures in leadership which have contributed to the dire straits the Big 3 find themselves in at this time. The New York Times and others have called for the resignation of the Big 3's CEOs, citing their complicity in the current crisis and their lack of foresight and competitive instincts. I support this call because even now, there is tremendous evidence that the leadership of the Big 3 just doesn't get it. Just today, in an interview on Fox News Channel, GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz stated that Americans want more sports utility vehicles and large pickup trucks and that small vehicles are a bad investment. I strongly encourage the ``Auto Czar,'' or ``President's Designee'' as it is referred to in this legislation, to push for the removal of any and all executives at the Big 3 who stand in the way of a greener, more fuel efficient auto industry. Finally, it should not go unnoticed that during the final legislative debate overseen by the 43rd President of the United States, the current Administration chose to fight tooth and nail against strong measures aimed at furthering the fight against global warming and promoting energy independence. We are only here today because Treasury Secretary Paulson could find $300 billion to invest in Wall Street financiers who manipulated securities and other financial tools for a living, but couldn't find $15 billion to help working men and women who create products made and consumed here in the United States of America. Instead of gracefully acknowledging the will of the American people, this lame duck President yet again fought against progress. It is a fitting reminder of the politics that we leave behind with this vote today and, hopefully, of the brighter days that await us. I encourage my colleagues to support the bill.